Harrison
Harrison v. Horton
Opinion
lead Opinion
Cooper, J.
This appeal is from a judgment denying appellant’s application for a writ of mandamtis, to compel the respondent to audit a demand upon the treasury of the city and county of San Francisco for the salary of appellant, as assistant district attorney, for the month of July, 1906. It is conceded that there is money in the general fund in the treasury of the city and county of San Francisco sufficient to pay the claim; that such money has not been appropriated to the payment of any claim or demand upon the said treasury, and that proper demand has been made upon the respondent.
The respondent contends that the board of supervisors had made no specific appropriation of money for the payment of appellant’s salary for the fiscal year beginning July 1,1906, and upon this ground claims that his refusal was justified, and this was the view taken by the judge of the superior court. It will, therefore, be necessary to consider the nature of the demand, and the law relative thereto.
Under the charter of the city and county of San Francisco (art. V., sec. 3), the district attorney is authorized to appoint seven assistant district attorneys, who shall each receive an annual salary of $3,600.…